Delineating the Four Major Strands of Tradition in the Pentateuch

At this point it may be useful to describe in more detail the characteristics of each of the four major strands of Pentateuchal tradition as they usually are delineated. 

When the priest Ezra arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon about 398 BCE (?) his mission was to reorganize the Jewish community and to settle the differences with the Samaritans. As a national law, he imposed “The Torah of the God of Heaven” (Ezra 7:21) upon everyone. There is general agreement among Biblical interpreters that we should see this “Torah” as the “Pentateuch” (from Greek: penta = “five” and teuchos = “scroll”) in generally its present form, as apparently Ezra and others associated with him had organized it. 

They seem to have had a vast collection of texts at their disposal for doing this: 

1. The Sacred Judean History – The “Yahwist” Traditions – “J” 

2. The Sacred History of the North – The Elohist” Traditions – “E” 

3. These two had already been fused into a single account: The “Old Epic Tradition” – “J-E” 

4. Deuteronomy – “D” 

5. The Priestly History and the laws in Leviticus and Numbers – “P” 

6. Various independent traditions, notably, laws on sacrifices and festivals, which had been edited by the priests during the Exile, or upon their return from Exile. 

With these materials Ezra and his associates succeeded in producing a work that, if it is not always coherent, is at least unified. The resultant sacred history runs from creation to the death of Moses, and brings into relief the two figures of Abraham and Moses. 

I. A Southern (Judean) Prophetic Strand of Tradition – the “Yahwist” – (“J”) 

According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the “Yahwist” (J) traditions may have been set down in writing about 950 BCE, about the time the Temple of Solomon would have been completed in Jerusalem. At that time the Hebrew nation of “all Israel” had overcome or absorbed completely the original Canaanite inhabitants, and the period of civil wars among the tribes had ended with the conquests of David. Apparently this period in the nation’s history, when “all Israel” was unified under Solomon, gave rise to the collecting of stories of the promises to Abraham and the fulfillment of those promises that finally had come to pass. This was the beginning of a sacred literature for the new nation that would match the kind of literature associated with the religious shrines and temples of neighboring peoples. 

This material is designated as “J” for at least two reasons: (1) It seems to have been associated primarily with the traditions preserved in what became the Southern kingdom later called “Judah.” David had established his first capital in the southern city of Hebron before he united “all Israel” and established a new capital at Jerusalem, which became the “city of David.” (2) This group of traditions uses the tribal Name “Yahweh” for God. The Name may have originally been used of a Kenite or Midianite deity. The German Biblical scholars who first arrived at that theory for the Name’s origin would have spelled the name “Jahweh,” with the “J” pronounced like the English “Y.” Because the Name “Yahweh” is the primary Name used for God in this body of materials, it is usually also referred to as the “Yahwist” tradition. We will refer to it that way, even when we speak of the oral materials on which the “document” would have been based. 

This earliest of the sources is also probably the most enjoyable to read. It is full of marvelous story-telling. The stories are very vivid, always concrete and full of imagery. God is often represented as being very much like a human being (“anthropomorphism”). For example, in the creation story of Genesis 2-3 Yahweh is in turn a gardener, a potter, a surgeon, and a tailor. God walks and talks with the human creature in the garden (Genesis 2). Yahweh invites Himself to a meal with Abraham, and even bargains with him over sparing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). And human beings live on familiar terms with Yahweh, and even meet Yahweh in the routines of everyday life. 

At the same time the God of this tradition is also utterly different from human beings. He is the master: He commands or forbids (Genesis 3:16). He calls human beings to new adventures: “Go, leave . . . ,” He can say to both Abram/Abraham and Moses. He has a plan for history. His blessing will bring happiness to His people, and through them will extend to all other human beings. (It is remarkable to find such “universalism” at such an early period in the literature of any early people.) Human beings are called to respond to the Divine call and to obey Yahweh. 

The sin of humankind, according to this tradition, is to want to take God’s place. This sin draws down a kind of “curse” on human beings: Cain, the great flood, the tower of Bab-El ( = Babylon). But the Yahwist’s God is One Who is ready to forgive, particularly when people like Abram/Abraham (Genesis 18) and Moses (Exodus 32:11-14) intercede with Him. This God is always ready to renew His blessing and His covenant with His people. 

The Yahwist material forms the heart of the structure of the Pentateuch, for all of the various traditions are built around the basic “plot” that is first found in “J.” “J” material is found in Genesis through Numbers, but not in Deuteronomy. Part of the genius of this tradition is the compilers’ ability to put together a reasonably complete story of Yahweh’s actions, not just back to the Exodus, but all the way to the beginning of creation. 

However, the facts and legends handed down in this group of traditions were not just written down as they were received. Rather, whoever compiled them was both an “artist” and a “theologian.” It is clear that while the story is presented in a simple and almost naïve style, the compiler presents profound theological ideas. He apparently loved to put words and speeches into the mouths of famous people. Often they foreshadow what would later happen, as in Genesis 15:13-15, in which Yahweh lays out for Abram/Abraham Israel’s coming history down to about the time of King David. Such a speech leads the reader to conclude that Yahweh carefully works out everything to fulfill His promises. 

The climax of the Yahwist story comes in the final great vision of the prophet Balaam in Numbers 24, where the King of Moab pays the seer to curse Israel, but instead Balaam sees Israel’s glorious future. Many Biblical “source critics” think that the “J” material ends at this point, for Yahweh has now taken care of His chosen patriarchs and tribes. He has led them from danger and slavery in Egypt. He has promised them a land of blessing to come, and now the vision is before them. Yahweh has fulfilled His promises. 

The “Yahwist” traditions may be rooted somewhat in the prophetic traditions of the south that began with the prophet Nathan and culminated in such prophets as Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah. 

II. A Northern (“Ephraimitic) Prophetic Strand of Tradition– the “Elohist” – (“E”) 

According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the “Elohist,” (“E”) traditions, like those of the “Yahwist,” seem to have been set down in writing to provide a sacred literature for a religious center. The United Kingdom (“all Israel”) that had been ruled by Saul and David and Solomon divided shortly after Solomon’s death (c. 931-922 BCE). At that time the leaders of the Northern Kingdom, “Israel,” which often was referred to as “Ephraim,” after its largest tribal group, set up sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel in competition with Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem. They probably felt a need to develop sacred literature of their own to associate with these newly established sanctuaries. These traditions, then, would have been set down in writing some time after about 931 BCE, and probably no later than about 850 BCE. 

This hypothetical “document” is referred to as “E” because (1) it was associated primarily with the Northern Kingdom (“Ephraim”/”Israel”) and (2) this Pentateuchal tradition, from Genesis 20 through Exodus 3 generally uses only the generic term “Elohim” ( = “god”) for the God of Israel. Therefore, this strand is usually referred to as the “Elohist” strand of tradition, even when it refers to the oral materials on which the written “document” was based. 

The narratives in the “Elohist” tradition appear to be a later re-working of the basic “Yahwist” accounts. They tend to be less vivid, less concrete, than the “Yahwist” narratives. In this tradition God is always portrayed as utterly different from human beings. The “Elohist” avoids “anthropomorphisms”—ways of talking about God as involved in human-like activity—unlike the “Yahwist.”  

This inaccessible God of “E” does not reveal Himself through anything like face-to-face encounters, but rather through “theophanies,” or spectacular Divine manifestations, like the burning bush. And God in this strand of tradition is often portrayed as revealing Himself through dreams. One cannot make an image of this Deity. “E” never speaks of God walking and talking with human beings in the garden or on the road, as does “J.” 

The “Elohist” tradition is very interested in moral questions, and a developing sense of sin is present. For example, as we compare the “J” version of the story about Abram passing off his wife Sarai as his sister (Genesis 12:10-20), with the “E” version (Genesis 20:1-18), we note that the “Elohist” is careful to point out that Abraham did not actually lie, because, in his understanding, Sarah was actually a half-sister to Abraham! Also, according to this strand, the Torah (“law,” “instruction,” etc.) that God gave to Moses was less concerned with ritual matters and more concerned with morality and with duty towards God and one’s “neighbor.” Real worship for the “Elohist” consists in obeying God and in rejecting all covenants with false deities. For the “Elohist” tradition the true servants of God are not the king and the priests, but the prophets. And this tradition considers both Abraham and Moses to have been “prophets” (just as Muslims do even today), who began the great line that resulted in men like Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Amos, and Hosea in the Northern Kingdom. 

The “Elohist” traditions are rooted in the great prophetic traditions of the North. “E” falls right in line with the great prophetic campaigns in the North by Elijah and other zealots for God who had to fight tooth and nail against the sexual license and lax standards of the pagan fertility cults. While the “E” material does not include as much material as does the “J” story, what it does cover tends to favor northern ideas and northern venues. For example, unlike “J,” “E” pays much less attention to Abram/Abraham, and Isaac, who usually are associated with the southern cities of Hebron and Beersheba, and more to Jacob, who was associated more with northern cities like Shechem and Beth-El. 

Also, “E” puts less stress on the role of leaders like Moses and the elders in the giving of the Covenant than does “J,” and accepts a much larger role for all the people giving their allegiance to the Covenant. This stress highlights the differences between the “J” concern for proper leadership of the nation and “E’s” suspicion of authorities who claim too much power for themselves. The history of the northern and the southern kingdoms reflects these concerns. 

“E” also takes a strong stand against foreign deities because of the ever-present threat of the Phoenician/Canaanite religion of Ba’al and Asherah in the north (cf. Genesis 35:2). The northern prophets condemned these fertility cults not only as unfaithfulness to the covenant with Yahweh, but also as “adultery,” because they broke the “marriage bond” between Yahweh and Israel (cf. Hosea 1-3). 

“E” is not as large as J, and seems a bit thin to modern readers when it is set alongside “J.” Some interpreters even suggest that “E” never was actually an independent written “document” in its own right, but only a series of additions to the basic “J” story. And even where “Elohist” material may be present in our present Pentateuch, sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish “J” from “E”, since they would naturally cover much the same material in a similar way, and would of necessity used a lot of the same vocabulary. An example of this occurs in Genesis 15, the great covenant between God and Abram. Almost all interpreters recognize that both strands of tradition are present, but they simply throw up their hands in dividing this passage and simply designate it as a combined “J-E” account. The same is true of the story of the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22, which is mostly “E,” but with many “J” elements interspersed. 

Often the easiest way to tell the two strands apart is their use of the Divine Names, “Elohim” or “Yahweh.” But this works only up until Exodus 3 for “J” and “E.” and the “Priestly” tradition, “P,” to be discussed below, uses the name “Elohim” almost exclusively from the first creation story in Genesis 1:1 – 2:4a until Exodus 6. From then on, all three traditions use both “Elohim” and “Yahweh” interchangeably. 

But if we cannot always tell “E” from “J” in a particular passage, interpreters point out that the reader can clearly see that within the whole narrative story in Genesis through Numbers there are clearly two different points of view expressed, yet intertwined in the narratives, that correspond to the differences between Judah (south) and Israel (north) during the period of the compilation of the two strands from the time of David (c. 1000 BCE) to the fall of Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom in 722/721 BCE. 

III. The Combined Narrative of “J” and “E” – The “All Israelite Epic” (“J-E”) 

Interpreters who support the “Documentary Hypothesis” have concluded that sometime after the fall of the Northern Kingdom to Assyria in 722/721 BCE some faithful Israelites made an attempt to preserve the varying elements of the national tradition from both the northern and the southern regions. The faithful among the Israelites who had escaped from the north may have taken refuge in Jerusalem, bringing their traditions with them. Indeed, after about 715 BCE there seems to have been a kind of national revival under King Hezekiah of Judah. It may have been in response to this that the two strands of tradition that had grown up separately were put together about this time into a single written work. 

This combining of the traditions would have been a tricky business, however, because they often had the same narratives presented from slightly different perspectives. Those who would have brought the two documents together tried to respect each of them – which may explain why modern interpreters can now detect traces of each one – while trying to make sure that the new narrative held together. They seem to have succeeded very well in keeping the hope of the “Yahwist” tradition, centered on the dynasty of King David, while at the same time incorporating the moral and spiritual covenant demands of the more prophetic “Elohist” tradition. The result was a work that could become the common property of all the tribes of both the north and the south, exhibiting their faith in the God of Israel and their hopes for the future. This combination document probably would have been completed by about 650 BCE. 

Many prominent scholars, among them Bernhard Anderson, suggest that the general outline and content of the combined document was set in oral form during the period of the Judges, long before either “J” or “E” was set down in writing, and they refer to this general outline as the “Old Epic Tradition” or the “All-Israelite Tradition,” since the story belonged not just to the north or to the south, but to “All Israel.” 

IV. The Deuteronomic Stand of Tradition – “D” 

The beginnings of “D,” or Deuteronomy, appear to be connected with the discovery in the sixteenth year of King Josiah of Judah (c. 621 BCE) of a “Book of the Torah” while repairs were being made in the Temple (2 Kings 22:3-10). The name “Deuteronomy” is derived from the Greek deutero ( = “second”) and nomos ( = “law”), and thus means, “second law.” This book reflects the ethical message of the prophets (Ahijah, Micaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Amos, Hosea, etc.) of the Northern Kingdom, Israel, and it appears to have been written, or most certainly, revised, shortly before its discovery. 

It appears that, before the fall of Samaria in 722/721 BCE, some people (disciples?) influenced by those prophets, were becoming aware that the Torah handed down from the time of Moses (found in Exodus, for the most part, in “J” and “E” portions and even earlier traditions) did not match up very well with reality. Those laws originally had been enacted for, and transmitted to, a nomadic people, yet by this time, Israel had become an organized nation. New problems had appeared, such as the dangers of the pagan practices of Canaan, and the injustices of the rich toward the poor in urban society. The Levite priests who probably collected and interpreted these legal traditions seem to have been influenced by the prophetic messages, especially those of Hosea. They came to understand that the Torah that God had given to His people, was not just any kind of contract, but a “covenant,” a bond of love like the bond that unites a husband and wife (cf. Hosea 1-3). 

After the fall of Samaria eventually these Levites took refuge in Jerusalem, where Hezekiah had recently become King. They brought these laws with them, organized them, and completed them during following century. In the meantime, these people seem to have reflected on the causes of the ruin of the Northern Kingdom: just what should they have done to remain faithful to God and to prevent the Kingdom’s destruction? The earliest arrangement of these laws (the passages written in the second person singular, between chapters 5 and 26) forms the core of our present book of Deuteronomy, according to the “Documentary Hypothesis.” 

This book sunk into oblivion under Hezekiah’s successor, the impious King Manasseh, but apparently was found again in the Temple about 621 BCE. King Josiah then made it the basis for his own great political and religious reform thorough which he sought to recreate a people of God united around Jerusalem and its Temple as the religious center of the nation. It is clear from the reforms that Josiah carried out, as described in 2 Kings 22-23, that they were based specifically on the Torah as proclaimed in Deuteronomy 5-26, and not on other laws from other traditions that were handed down earlier or later. 

But that is not all there is to this Deuteronomic strand of tradition. After the Southern Kingdom, Judah, fell in 587/586 BCE to the Babylonians, other theologians meditated on the fall of that kingdom, and re-read the history of the Hebrew people from the time of Joshua through the period of the two Kingdoms in light of the message found in Deuteronomy. As they put their final touches to the books of Joshua and Kings, and also, but in a rather less tidy way, to the books of Judges and Samuel, these writers tried to show how people should have lived in faithfulness to God if they had wanted their history to take another course. 

As we examine the Book of Deuteronomy itself we notice immediately that the style is very emotional. This strand of tradition is not content just to teach. It wants to convince people that they should obey. It is written in a kind of “preaching style.” Deuteronomy favors long speeches, with much urging to obedience that is typical of a preacher delivering a sermon. This feature stands apart from the often short stories and incidents that are described in the Books of Genesis and Exodus. 

In the name of the true tradition of Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy makes a call for return to the proper obedience to the covenant. There are numerous repetitions. For example: “Yahweh ( = “The LORD”) your God (Hebrew: Elohim),” . . . “Hear, O Israel, remember . . . ” . . . “Keep the commandments, laws, and customs” . . . There is a constant mixture of the second person singular and the second person plural. This, doubtless, is a sign of two stages in the editing of the book. In the Book of Deuteronomy as we have it today, it becomes the affirmation that the people is a single body, but that every believer among this people keeps his or her own personality. 

Some key ideas of the Deuteronomic tradition are : (1) Yahweh ( = “The LORD”) is the sole God of Israel. (2) Yahweh has chosen a people for Himself. In response to this election, the people must love God. (3) God has given the people a land, but only on condition that they remain faithful to Him, remember His covenant with them, today. (4) It is above all in worship that the people, and assembly called by God as at Horeb ( = Sinai), remembers and understands the Torah of God. 

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Deuteronomy’s style is that, although the words are put into the mouth of Moses, they are directed toward a people living long after the events of the Exodus, people who are urged to recall and to keep the teaching (Torah) of Moses. Deuteronomy looks back upon the conquest of the holy land as a completed event, and its legal ideas presuppose the highly developed government under the monarchy as set up by David and Solomon. In general, almost every chapter gives away the secret that the authors/compilers are not really looking ahead to a new time, but rather are looking backward from deep in the time of the monarchy. 

V. The Priestly Strand of Tradition (“P”) 

According to the “Documentary Hypothesis” the Priestly material in the Pentateuch consists of legal, genealogical, ritual, and chronological records of varying antiquity. Some of it may well go all the way back to the time of Moses himself, shortly after c. 1290 BCE (e.g., Exodus 20-23). Some of it seems to come from the time of the Exile in Babylon in the sixth century BCE (e.g., Leviticus 17-26). Most of the rest seems to stem from the periods in between. The Biblical interpreters who hold to the “Documentary Hypothesis” suggest that it was probably a priest (Ezra or some one associated with him?) or a group of priests, who, in the fifth century BCE completed the compilation of the Priestly strand and also completed the Pentateuch itself, doing the final work of compilation, organization, and editing. 

These “P” traditions are clearly intended to supplement the historical traditions of Israel and Judah that “J” and “E” and the legal materials of “J,” “E,”, and “D,” by adding special materials on worship, observance of the covenant in day to day life, and within the social structures of the Israelite community of the period of the Exile. “J” and “E” had traced the promise of God down to the covenant on Sinai/Horeb, and the taking of the land of Canaan. This was adequate for Israel while it had full possession of the land and a King or Kings to protect their religious practices from pagan threats. But “P” shows many signs that it was compiled during the time of the Exile, when the land and the Kingship had both been taken away. 

To help people maintain their faith in Yahweh even when everything seemed to have been lost, “P” set out all the aspects of Israel’s faith that were still valid despite those losses. “P” includes in its story the reasons for keeping the Sabbath (Genesis 1), the origins of circumcision (Genesis 17), the Divine commands to obey all of the cultic and religious laws (Leviticus 1-27 and Numbers 1-10, 25-36), and the important role of the High Priest, next to Moses himself (Exodus 4:28; Numbers 1, etc.) 

The center of the tradition for the “P” tradition was not the promise of the land, but rather the time of testing in the wilderness/desert at Sinai/Horeb, where the Torah was given and where the Tent and the Ark were built for Yahweh. “P’s” treatment of these themes takes up more space than the entire “J” and “E” narratives put together. Everything that “P” treats offers the possibility of practicing one’s faith despite conditions of hardship or even loss of the land. During the Exile the Jewish people had lost all that had made them a people. There was a risk that they might become assimilated and disappear, as had been the fate of the Northern Kingdom some 150 years earlier, when the cream of the leadership were deported to Assyria. Who would then help them to withstand this test? There were prophets like Ezekiel and an unknown prophet who wrote most of the last half of our book of Isaiah (40-66), but above all, there were the priests. 

In Babylon the priesthood of the Judean exiles formed a solid group, well-organized and with deep piety. They were the ones who would sustain the faith of the exiles. They succeeded in adapting their religion to the difficult situation and in giving it a new future. They either invented new forms of practice, or gave established practices a new significance. The Sabbath, as a sanctification of time, and circumcision, as a mark of belonging to God’s people, would become primary symbols. Temple sacrifices were replaced gradually by assemblies in “synagogues” where people prayed and meditated on God’s Torah. It was in this context, according to those who hold the “Documentary Hypothesis,” that the Priestly document came into being. 

The priests re-read past history to discover in it a reply to agonizing questions: Why is God silent? How can we believe in God in the Babylonian environment that celebrates the god Marduk as the creator? What is the place of other nations (“Gentiles”) in the plans of God? 

The literary style of the Priestly tradition is dry. It is not the product of the great storytellers. It is partial to genealogies and lists and numbers, and often it is quite repetitive. See, for example the Priestly version of the crossing of the Sea of Reeds/“Red Sea” (Exodus 14), the creation of the world (Exodus 1:1 – 2:4a), and the building of the sanctuary in the wilderness/desert (Exodus 25-31, 35-40). The vocabulary is often technical, and has to do with ritual matters. When people begin to read through the Bible the going is smooth while they are reading the traditions from “J” and even “E” and “D,” but the going gets tougher when the reader runs into the “P” traditions, especially those of legal and ritual matters. 

Genealogies often appear in this strand of tradition, and they become the skeleton of Genesis, onto which the meat and muscles of the body are added by “J” and “E.” Genealogies are important for an exiled people without apparent roots. They give the people their roots in history, and they connect this history with the history of the creation (Genesis 2:4a; 5:1; Numbers 3:1). Worship has pride of place in this strand. Moses organizes it. Aaron and his descendants (the priesthood) are made responsible for continuing it through pilgrimages, festivals, and worship in the Temple, which is the holy place in which God makes Himself present. The priesthood is an essential institution that assures the existence of the people. It replaces the role of the King in the “Yahwist” tradition and the prophet in the “Elohist” tradition. 

The various laws are usually placed in a narrative context in the “P” tradition. Thus, they are attached to historical events that give them significance. See for example, the law about fertility (Genesis 9:1) in the story of the flood, or the law about the Passover (Exodus 12:1 ff.) attached to the narrative about the tenth plague on the Egyptians. 

Because of all of these characteristics the Priestly texts are the easiest ones to identify in the Pentateuch. 

VI. General Overview of J E D and P 

“Yahwist” (“J”) 

God is Yahweh 

God walks and talks with humans 

Stress on promised blessings from God 

“Earthy” speech about God 

Stress on individual leaders 

Narratives and stories 

Stress on south (Judah) 

Uses term “Sinai” 

Calls natives of promised land “Canaanite” 

“Elohist” (“E”) 

God is Elohim (until Exodus 3) 

God reveals Himself in dreams and visions 

Stress on “fear of” (reverence for) God 

“Refined” speech about God 

Stress on the people; stress on prophetic themes 

Narratives and warnings 

Stress on north (Israel) 

Uses term “Horeb” 

Calls natives of promised land “Amorites” 

“Deuteronomist (D) 

God is Yahweh 

Moralistic approach to God 

Stress on obedience to Mosaic laws 

Speeches recalling God’s works 

Stress on fidelity to one central sanctuary (Jerusalem) 

Long, “sermonic” speeches 

Stress on whole land (“all-Israel”) 

Partial to military imagery 

Many fixed phrases 

“Priestly” “P” 

God is Elohim (until Exodus 6) 

Ritual (cultic) approach to God 

Stress on obedience to Mosaic laws 

“Majestic” speech about God 

Stress on ritual (cultic) matters 

Many dry "lists," genealogies, “links” 

Stress on south (Judah) 

Many fixed phrases